Spread the love

By Deepak Joshi Pokhrel

We live in a society where people hit the street and disapprove of the move of the government if it is not people-centric. They hit the street, asking what the reason is behind such a move and exerting pressure to reverse its decision. This is the beauty of democracy. However, while doing so, we often fail to assess whether the move of the ruling government was needed at the time or not.

On January 27, 2025, the Council of Ministers approved the Media Council Bill and is now waiting for the parliament to endorse it. The bill targets the creation and dissemination of misleading content. In addition, the bill also aims to address the issues of the creation of fake accounts, pages, or groups specifically to spread harmful information or deceptive information that could disrupt national sovereignty, territorial integrity, or national interest. The bill also proposes severe penalties for the offender. For instance, anyone found guilty of engaging in such could face up to three months in prison, a fine of up to Rs 50,000, or both. Likewise, the bill also proposes penalties for individuals who incite others to commit unlawful acts via social media.

As expected, soon after the bill was tabled by the council of ministers, the flurry of protests kicked off across the country. Some were condemning the move through their Facebook page, while others were through their X (former Twitter) account, saying this is an oppressive move and it violates the constitutionally guaranteed rights. To say, social media was inundated with the message condemning the move of the ruling government.

But what is not understandable is whether their disagreement is guided by political interest or not. Likewise, what is also not understandable is whether they have also realized how uncontrolled and unregulated social media has misled the people, threatening our national sovereignty over the years. One should not oppose the move of the government just for the sake of opposing it.

This pen pusher is not against those who are protesting the recent bill over social media. My submission is that we need to comprehensively understand what led the government to resort to such action. We need to understand what the rationale of the move is—whether it is truly a repressive move or a need of the time.

No doubt, in this digital era, social media has been playing a key role in empowering, informing, and educating the masses on issues that matter to them. One can send and receive information within a blink of an eye. Its role in uniting the diverse voices raising collective action against the undemocratic move of the ruling administration is truly commendable. However, we cannot afford to overlook the negative side of social media.

With the growth of social media, Tom, Dick, and Harry can become a reporter or journalist without any relevant academic background and training. What one needs is a social media account and half-baked knowledge and information. Through their social media account, they report on any issues as if they have extensive knowledge and experience on the issue. Well, as long as this does not harm and mislead people, it should not be viewed with scepticism.

However, problems arise when they deliberately deceive the people by spreading rumors and disinformation, threatening our national sovereignty and national interest. Just to recall, when India constructed the road on the disputed land at Lipulekh, which irked the Nepalese people, Oli, in response, condemned the move of the New Delhi administration. His government, as a counterattack, released Nepal’s new map incorporating Lipulekh, Limpiyadhura, and Kalapani.

Against this backdrop, social media was inundated with messages mocking KP Oli. Many social media users said that Oli resorted to this action at the behest of the northern neighbour, China, which was completely a baseless allegation. Some even posted a disrespectful image of Oli and propaganda against the Nepal government. One can easily understand how political leaders come under scrutiny and why the government is unable to book such offenders. The unregulated and uncontrolled social media is the answer.

This is not to say that our politicians are not subject to criticism. They are. As a matter of fact, in any functioning democracy, the citizen has the right to criticise the political leaders if they intend to challenge the rights ensured by the national charter—the constitution. But it should not be done disrespectfully.

The government tabled the social media not with an objective not aimed at curtailing the individual liberties and freedom of expression. Likewise, it is also not attempting to snatch the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizen. Instead, it is aimed at managing social media for the broader interest of the nation.

The advocates who are protesting against the move of the social media bill need to understand that the social media bill is not an oppressive move and does not reflect the tendency of an autocratic leader. Likewise, they also should understand that regulation of social media will help to prevent people from being misled by social media users. Of course, freedom of expression is a constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizen. But unregulated and uncontrolled social media has been offering ample space for its users to drag the high-profile figure into controversy through their disrespectful and half-baked information.

But the government, at the same time, should uphold the constitution in letter and spirit and ensure the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people. This is the key tenet of democracy.